This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
...
Make up your mind, guy.
Nobody gives a shit though -- except for a handful of obsessives such as yourself.
The "JQ" is parlance for the critique of Jewish influence in culture and politics. That criticism is ignored and countersignaled across both sides of the political aisle. They don't criticize it, they operate within established boundaries. NRx doesn't criticize it either. So someone like JD Vance, with his first breath as the VP pick, advocating for war with Iran and shilling for Israel, even as he plays isolationist when it comes to Ukraine, is basically what we can expect from someone who claims NRx influence. The JQ can't be assimilated, NRx can be because it respects those boundaries.
Your suggestion that a consensus among political and cultural elites indicates a topic is unimportant or uninteresting is so unfathomably wrong. It would be like saying the Christian Question isn't important because all elite political and cultural figures agree that criticisms of Christianity are entirely off the table and verboten. Obviously if that were true, you would consider the Christian Question to be pertinent especially because all criticisms of it are functionally or legally outlawed.
I would suggest that if both sides of the political dialectic, despite their large apparent differences and hatred of eachother, agree on a major area that defines moral boundaries and cultural consciousness, that is the issue which defines the entire political dialectic. This is because, despite incessant conflict in all areas of political and cultural life, both sides of the aisle are working together to advance the interests of that particular issue. Vance isn't going to break the dialectic, he's just going to be new window dressing on shilling for Israel under the influence of some other Jewish thinker.
Vance, as a 39-year old possible VP could actually make history by challenging Zionist influence in American life. He's not going to do that. He's going to play ball.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all -- I'm suggesting that the consensus amongst virtually everyone in North America, with the exception of yourself an perhaps a not-quite-enough-to-fill-an-average-high-school-gym contingent of fellow travellers, is that this question is not only uninteresting and unimportant -- but profoundly silly and/or boring.
A total nullity.
There's not exactly a consensus on that. There are a lot of anti-Zionists on the progressive side of the aisle. The thing is, though, to get to full Nazi you need to be an anti-Zionist and a particular flavour of HBDer; if you're not an HBDer, or think that Ashkenazi Jews are mostly just smarter white people, then all you really want is to destroy Zionism the cultural phenomenon and assimilate Jews a bit better - no gas chambers here.
This might be naive, but I don't understand how HBD would lead someone to be anti-jewish. I'd expect the total opposite, in fact.
Like I said, HBD doesn't necessarily lead there, but there's a particular flavour of HBD that does. HBD isn't solely about intelligence, after all, much as that tends to hog the limelight.
The Nazi position is that Jews are genetically predisposed to exploitativity and conspiracy, which is an obvious deal-breaker for anyone who doesn't think he can get in on the conspiracy. Genius is not prosocial if it's evil genius.
(NB: I'm explaining a position I disagree with, here.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To get to full Nazi you need to believe in all sorts of superstitious mystic babble and stay away from all science, logic, facts and reason.
Real unironic hard core Hitler heiling Nazis are either barely literate tattooed thugs or deranged occultists.
Evolutionary HBDIQ science does not lead to NSDAP politics, it leads to old time Swedish social democratic politics.
Can you explain more about this?
NAZI: We must return to our noble and glorious ancestors.
SCIENCE: Our ancestors were savage beasts, we must move forward.
NAZI: We need living space to provide food for our people.
SCIENCE: We barely started to use scientific methods of plant and animal breeding and we alredy improved crop and livestock yields manyfold over limits previously thought "natural" and "unbreakable".
NAZI: The lowly mob should not rule. We need Great Leader chosen by Destiny to unify our people.
SCIENCE: The mob indeed should not rule, and neither should any man alone. Relying on one man is single point of failure (especially when the man is drug addicted failed artist with no education), the best and the brightest need to be in charge.
NAZI: The Leader must command and everyone must obey without questions. There will be no place for such treason as criticism, especially criticism of The Leader.
SCIENCE: No one and nothing should be above criticism, free exchange of ideas among smart and educated people is necessary for progress and advancement. No one's word should be trusted all alone.
NAZI: War is glorious, war is noble, there is nothing greater than war. War considered awesome.
SCIENCE: War is pointless destruction of capital both physical and human - the best people die first and cannot be replaced. War was beneficial for human evolution during Stone Age, but these times are long gone. Especially in industrial age there is nothing more dysgenic than war.
War considered harmful.
NAZI: We need eugenics to purify our race from sickness and degeneracy.
SCIENCE: Yes, and we must start with hereditary psychopaths like you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Appealing to public consensus is weak here, because obviously the differential between public consensus and reality is what makes the issue important. True, the public cannot in their wildist dreams imagine even mild criticism of Jewish influence in American political and cultural life. Does that mean the issue is not important for Culture War, or does it mean it's the single most important issue?
I've already stated the issue is important because the consensus actively ignores it.
Average Joe grew up watching Schindler's List and reading Anne Frank, so criticism of Jewish influence for him is silly at best and beyond-the-pale at worst. That doesn't mean the issue is unimportant, it means the issue is culture-defining.
As I said several posts ago, the odds are typically on the former -- it's certainly not indicative of the latter! (unless you are also suggesting that we should be imagining Flat Earthery to be intrinsically important since more-or-less nobody thinks it's even worth talking about?)
If you want to make the case for why your brave fringe is right and everybody else is wrong, then make it -- but 'check it out, nobody is talking about this!' is a really weak case.
Yes, that is what I am doing. People who think that critique of Jewish influence in American political and cultural life is silly and immoral are wrong- all of them. That perception is just an artifact of the prevailing Culture, it's not based on reality. I'm interested in challenging that Culture, and my prediction is that J D Vance is going to be a manifestation for how easily NRx is subsumed by the prevailing Culture.
You aren't doing it though -- European anti-semitism is kind of lindy I guess, but it doesn't exactly stand on its own. What's exactly your issue with the jews? Like, what's wrong with them?
By their own account it's the most ancient prejudice in world history- with an uncanny commonality among enormously wide swathes of historical time and space. It certainly stands on its own, and suppressing it requires an enormous amount of effort, using all the levers of cultural influence and political power. Even that appears to be failing with every passing day.
I'd like to second @jkf - why don't you just come out and say what's so bad about Jews? "They are powerful and exert enormous cultural influence." And? "People have hated them for thousands of years, it can't be a coincidence, there must be a reason." What reason?
In the past, you've just waved vaguely at assertions that they are waging war against "us" (how?) and that Jewish tribalism is inimical to everyone else (how?) and somehow different from everyone else who has a strong inter-ethnic identity (how?), and maybe someone else will mumble something about Jews being responsible for immigration and no-fault divorce and pornography, which even you say is not really the issue, so - why don't you just take the mask off in this place, one of the few places you can do that, and tell us what makes Jews so terrible that we must fight them?
More options
Context Copy link
So that's what you're going to go with? "Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages, Jews are bad m'kay"? This is not a convincing platform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link